MapleStory MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool retrieves without detailing how it behaves—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly without structured support from annotations or output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve') and resources ('starforce enhancement probability information and success rates'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cube_probability', which might handle similar probability calculations but for different game mechanics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_cube_probability' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios where it's most useful, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.